aiqbench analysis
This study evaluates Jev, a System One decision model designed to act as a cost-effective judge for verifying the factual accuracy of AI-generated radiology reports against physician references. The research demonstrates that this approach significantly reduces token usage and costs while maintaining strong correlation with expert error counts, particularly in detecting critical issues like false negatives. These findings highlight a practical method for ensuring clinical factuality in medical AI applications without relying on expensive or complex evaluation infrastructures.
Can Jev Judge Radiology Reports? Evaluating a System One Model for Clinical Factuality
arXiv:2609.27607v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An AI-generated radiology report can resemble a physician's report while omitting an abnormality, adding an unsupported finding, or reversing its presence. Measuring these factual differences is essential for evaluating report generators. We study Jev, a System One decision model, as a simple, low-cost judge of agreement with physician-written reference reports. Our evaluator checks whether each statement is supported by the other report and combines these judgments in both directions to capture unsupported claims and omissions. A single-question configuration reaches Kendall correlations of 0.573 on RadEvalX and 0.398 on RadEvalExpert with expert error counts, outperforming an open natural language inference judge under matched decomposition and aggregation. One support question per statement retains similar expert agreement to seven while using 43-45% fewer judgment input tokens. At the documented API price, judgments cost under three cents per hundred report pairs, excluding local decomposition. In a separate controlled-error test, Jev detects false negation with an AUROC of 0.977. Local RadMatch achieves stronger agreement on clinically significant errors in both expert datasets and on total errors in the shared RadEvalExpert subset. Finding-count and error-scope analyses show that benchmark agreement reflects report size and error definitions as well as medical error detection. These results support Jev as a practical judgment component for measuring factual differences in generated radiology reports and identify where more elaborate evaluation remains valuable.
Title:Can Jev Judge Radiology Reports? Evaluating a System One Model for Clinical Factuality
Abstract:An AI-generated radiology report can resemble a physician's report while omitting an abnormality, adding an unsupported finding, or reversing its presence. Measuring these factual differences is essential for evaluating report generators. We study Jev, a System One decision model, as a simple, low-cost judge of agreement with physician-written reference reports. Our evaluator checks whether each statement is supported by the other report and combines these judgments in both directions to capture unsupported claims and omissions. A single-question configuration reaches Kendall correlations of 0.573 on RadEvalX and 0.398 on RadEvalExpert with expert error counts, outperforming an open natural language inference judge under matched decomposition and aggregation. One support question per statement retains similar expert agreement to seven while using 43-45% fewer judgment input tokens. At the documented API price, judgments cost under three cents per hundred report pairs, excluding local decomposition. In a separate controlled-error test, Jev detects false negation with an AUROC of 0.977. Local RadMatch achieves stronger agreement on clinically significant errors in both expert datasets and on total errors in the shared RadEvalExpert subset. Finding-count and error-scope analyses show that benchmark agreement reflects report size and error definitions as well as medical error detection. These results support Jev as a practical judgment component for measuring factual differences in generated radiology reports and identify where more elaborate evaluation remains valuable.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.27607 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.27607v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.27607 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 332 words
Related coverage

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026
ReportQA: QA-Based Radiology Report Evaluation
arXiv · Jun 17, 2026

AI in healthcare: applications and best practices
Databricks · Jul 24, 2026
SPARC-Rad: A Multimodal Benchmark Dataset and Evaluation Pipeline for Spatial and Anatomical Reasoning in Radiology Vision-Language Models
arXiv · Aug 5, 2026